You are here: / / Environmental Clean-Up Indemnification Agreement Between Seller and Buyer...
, ,

Environmental Clean-Up Indemnification Agreement Between Seller and Buyer of Property Triggered by Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) “Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)” Letter to Buyer

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the environmental clean-up indemnification agreement between the seller (Pyne) and buyer (Remet) of property was triggered by the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) letter to Remet. Although the letter referred to Remet as a “potentially” responsible party (PRP), the letter required that Remet enter into a consent agreement (re: the clean-up) with the DEC or, if no consent agreement is executed within 30 days, pay for the clean-up done by the DEC:

The plain language of the governing contractual indemnity provision, together with the language of the PRP letter and the surrounding facts and circumstances, demonstrate that Remet was entitled to indemnification because it was “required,” within the meaning of the sales agreement, to act in response to the PRP letter. The PRP letter stated that it pertained to an “Urgent Legal Matter,” indicated that a prompt reply was “necessary,” and set forth the consequences that would flow from Remet’s refusal to act. Regardless of whether Remet was designated a potentially responsible party or a responsible party, the letter demanded either a consent order or payment, and any language indicating that Remet’s response was voluntary must be read in terms of those demands. In other words, the PRP letter — by its terms — effectively marked the beginning of a “legal” process against Remet pursuant to the ECL, in which DEC expressly sought recovery from Remet for any amounts expended in remediating the [the site].

Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the indemnification clause include the parties’ awareness that, because the [site] was listed as an inactive hazardous waste site, the purchaser of the property at issue here risked incurring substantial expenses, and that Pyne accordingly deposited a large sum in escrow to cover at least a portion of those potential expenses. Remet Corp. v Estate of Pyne, 2015 NY Slip Op 07575, CtApp 10-20-15

 

You might also like
THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED UPON STATEMENTS BY AN INFORMANT; BUT THE WARRANT APPLICATION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BASIS OF THE INFORMANT’S KNOWLEDGE; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE WARRANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
POLICY LANGUAGE MUST BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT COVERAGE OF ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IS TRIGGERED ONLY WHEN THE INSURED IS NEGLIGENT, NOT MERELY WHEN THE ACTIONS OF THE INSURED HAVE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INJURY.
THE OMISSION OF NON-ELEMENTAL FACTUAL INFORMATION, HERE THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, FROM THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT FORM WAS A DEFECT WAIVED BY THE GUILTY PLEA (CT APP).
Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Failure to Set Up Guard Rails Was a Proximate Cause–Liability Imposed Regardless of Plaintiff’s Own Negligence and Regardless of Whether the Owner, Contractor or Agent Supervised or Controlled the Work
THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE RATE CAPS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES WHICH USE THE PUBLIC UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TO DELIVER ELECTRICITY TO CONSUMERS (CT APP).
TWO PEOPLE WERE SHOT IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING; DEFENDANT, IN THE PLEA ALLOCUTIONS, DID NOT ADMIT TO FIRING SEPARATELY AT EACH VICTIM; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE COMMISSION OF TWO DISTINCT CRIMES; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES COULD NOT BE IMPOSED (CT APP).
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Analytical Criteria for Determining Whether a Defect Is Trivial Explained Attorney General’s Complaint Against Sprint Stated a Cause of Action Under...